On Constitutional Conventions—Part I

That the new constitution cannot make a union of states, but only of
individuals, and purposes the beginning of one new society, one new government
in all matters, is evident from these considerations, viz: It marks no line of
distinction between separate state matters, and what would of right come under
the control of the powers ordained in a union of states. To say that no line
could be drawn, is giving me the argument. For what can be more absurd than to
say, that states are united where a general power is established that extends to
all objects of government, i.e., all that exist among the people who make the
compact? And is it not clear that Congress have the right (by the constitution),
to make general laws for proving all acts, records, proceedings, and the effect
thereof, in what are now called the states? Is it possible after this that any
state act can exist, or any public business be done, without the direction and
sanction of Congress, or by virtue of some subordinate authority? If not, how in
the nature of things can there be a union of states? Does not the uniting of
states, as states, necessarily imply the existence of separate state powers?

Again, the constitution makes no consistent, adequate provision for
amendments to be made to it by states, as states. Not they who drew up the
amendments (should any be made), but they who ratify them, must be considered as
making them. Three fourths of the legislatures of the several states, as they
are now called, may ratify amendments—that is, if Congress see fit, but not
without. Where is then any independent state authority recognized in the plan?
And if there is no independent state authority, how can there be a union of
states? But is it not a question of importance why the states in their present
capacity, cannot ratify the original? I mean, why the legislatures of the
several states cannot do this business? I wish to be informed where to find the
regular exercise and legal sanction of state power, if the legislative authority
of the state is set aside. Have the people some other constitutional means by
which they can give their united voice in state affairs? This leads me to
observe, that should the new constitution be received as it stands, it can never
be proved that it originated from any proper state authority; because there is
no such authority recognized either in the form of it, or in the mode fixed upon
for its ratification. It says, "We the people of the United States,"
etc., make this constitution; but does this phrase, "We the people of the
United States," prove that the people are acting in state character, or
that the several states must of necessity exist with separate governments? Who
that understands the subject will believe either? …

The plan does not acknowledge any constitutional state authority as necessary
in the ratification of it. This work is to be done by a mere convention, only in
consequence of mere recommendation; which does by no means amount to a proper
state act. As no state act can exist independent of the supreme authority of the
state, and this authority is out of the question in the ratification of the new
constitution, it clearly follows that the ratifying of it, by a mere convention,
is no proper state business. To conclude, the people may make the original, but
the people have no right to alter it. Congress may order this matter just as
they please, and consequently have whom they please elected for governors or
representatives, not of the states but of the people; and not of the people as
men but as property.…